Legislature(2025 - 2026)BUTROVICH 205
05/08/2025 03:30 PM Senate HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB70 | |
| HJR9 | |
| HB36 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 70 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 70-EMERGENCY MED SVCS; OPERATIONAL CANINES
3:34:43 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR announced the consideration of CS FOR HOUSE BILL
NO. 70(L&C) am "An Act relating to emergency medical services
for operational canines; relating to the powers, duties, and
liability of emergency medical technicians and mobile intensive
care paramedics; relating to the practice of veterinary
medicine; and providing for an effective date."
3:35:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CALVIN SCHRAGE, District 12, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of HB 70 spoke to the
following summary:
[Original punctuation provided.]
House Bill 70 Version G.A "Rico's Law"
An act relating to emergency medical services for
operational canines.
House Bill 70 empowers Emergency Medical Services
(EMS) personnel to deliver on-scene point-of-injury
(POI) emergency care and transport for operational
canines (OpK9s).
Operational canines are essential members of law
enforcement, other government operations, and search-
and-rescue teams. These courageous animals amplify the
success of countless military, law enforcement,
search-and-rescue, and humanitarian missions. Their
roles even extend to police or fire chaplaincy during
crises.
3:37:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE continued with the introduction of HB 70:
This bill is named "Rico's Law" in honor of Alaska
State Trooper K9 Rico, whose end of watch occurred on
March 26, 2017. Rico was fatally shot while heroically
attempting to apprehend a suspect after a lengthy
pursuit on the Parks Highway in Wasilla, Alaska.
K9 Rico, like all operational canines, demonstrated
unwavering dedication to protecting and defending his
community. These animals are more than just assets or
propertythey are teammates, partners, and family
members who deserve emergency care and transportation
rights. Operational canines, especially those deployed
in tactical or high-threat situations, face
significant risks of injury or preventable death.
Currently, Alaska lacks statutory authority allowing
EMS personnel to apply life-saving care to these
animals. Under current law, providing such care could
be deemed "practicing veterinary medicine without a
license," a violation under AS 08.98.120, carrying
severe penalties. The super-rural nature of Alaska
adds another dimension of acuity for our operational
canines outside of Alaska's major urban centers.
Alaska's EMS professionals already possess the
equipment, supplies, and medications needed to adapt
existing prehospital standards of care for human
patients to operational canines. Training programs
like the K9 Tactical Emergency Casualty Care (K9 TECC)
course provide additional training for clinicians to
confidently manage operational canine emergencies. The
passage of this bill would eliminate legal barriers,
enabling EMS personnel to administer life-saving care
and transport injured operational canines to emergency
veterinary facilities.
With minimal investment by our participating EMS
services, Alaska EMS can ensure that our operational
canines have a fighting chance at survival when
injured in the line of duty.
3:38:48 PM
JEREMY HOUSTON, Staff, Representative Calvin Schrage, Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, provided the sectional
analysis for HB 70:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Sectional Analysis
House Bill 70, Version G.A - "Rico's Law"
An act related to emergency medical services and
operational canines.
Section 1: Amends AS 08.98.125 to allow emergency
medical technicians and mobile intensive care
paramedics to perform emergency medical services on an
operational canine as authorized under AS 18.08.093
without a license to practice veterinary medicine.
Section 2: Amends AS 18.08.075(a) to authorize
emergency medical technicians and mobile intensive
care paramedic to enter a building or premises where a
report of an injury or illness has taken place, or
where there is reasonable cause to believe an
operational canine has been injured or is ill, to
render emergency medical care and direct the removal
of a motor vehicle or other thing determined necessary
to prevent further harm to operational canines.
3:40:13 PM
MR. HOUSTON continued with the sectional analysis for HB 70:
Section 3: Amends AS 18.08.082(a) to direct the
Department of Heath to prescribe a course or other
requirements prerequisite to the issuance of
certificates or licenses that provide for
authorization for a licensed emergency medical
technician or mobile intensive care paramedic to
provide emergency medical services to an operational
canine as enumerated on a written document filed with
the department by the medical director and approved by
the department in regulation.
Section 4: Amends AS 18.08.086(a) to provide for civil
liability protection to providers, or a director of a
provider licensed under AS 18.08.082 who administers
emergency medical services to an operational canine
within the scope of the person's certification or
licensure and if the operational canine reasonably
seems to be in immediate danger of serious harm or
death.
Section 5: Amends AS 18.08.087 to remove language
limiting physicians, advanced practice registered
nurses, or physician assistants' permission to
disclose medical information of a patient to emergency
medical technicians and mobile intensive care
paramedics when the information is not for the purpose
of evaluating the performance of an emergency medical
technician, mobile intensive care paramedic or
physician.
Section 6: Adds two new subsections to AS 18.08.087.
The first allows licensed veterinarians to disclose
medical or hospital records of an operational canine
to an emergency medical technician or mobile intensive
care paramedic for the purpose of evaluating the
performance of an emergency medical technician or
mobile intensive care paramedic. The second adds
language restricting physicians, advanced practice
registered nurses, or physician assistants' permission
to disclose medical information of a patient to
emergency medical technicians and mobile intensive
care paramedics when the information is not for the
purpose of evaluating the performance of an emergency
medical technician, mobile intensive care paramedic or
physician.
3:42:08 PM
MR. HOUSTON continued with the sectional analysis for HB 70:
Section 7: Adds one new section to AS 18.08 with three
subsections. Subsection (a) allows emergency medical
technicians or mobile intensive care paramedics to
provide emergency medical services to an operational
canine if the emergency medical technician or mobile
intensive care paramedic reasonably determines there
is immediate danger of serious harm to or death of the
operational canine, determines that a veterinarian is
unavailable to provide emergency medical services to
the operational canine soon enough to address the
danger, is authorized to provide emergency medical
services to an operational canine, and has informed
consent from the owner or someone authorized to make
medical decisions about the operational canine or is
providing medical service in accordance with a written
protocol developed by a veterinarian. Subsection (b)
requires the emergency medical technician or mobile
intensive care paramedic to transfer the operational
canine to a licensed veterinarian at the earliest
practicable opportunity. Subsection (c) prohibits
emergency medical technicians and mobile intensive
care paramedics to provide care to operational canines
if a person requires emergency medical services.
Section 8: Amends AS 18.08.200 to define
"veterinarian" in this chapter the same as it is under
AS 08.98 and "operational canine" as a dog used by law
enforcement or other government operations; or in
search and rescue operations.
Section 9: Sets an effective date of January 1st,
2026.
3:44:23 PM
CHAIR TOBIN noted that some communities rely on service dogs or
sled dogs for transportation and assistance. She asked if the
definition in Section 8 includes working service animals.
3:45:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE replied that there has been discussion
about expanding the definition of operational canines including
service dogs, though veterinarians have raised concerns about
the scope of HB 70.
3:46:31 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR asked for confirmation on the necessity of Section
4 on civil liability, asking who would be liable if a paramedic
unintentionally harms an operational canine owned by the police.
He noted that Section 1, which addresses unauthorized veterinary
practice, might already address these concerns.
3:46:50 PM
SENATOR HUGHES joined the meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE replied that privately owned search-and-
rescue dogs can meet the definition of operational canines. He
said if someone providing aid exceeds their veterinary skills
and harms the dog, it could create grounds for legal liability.
This potential for lawsuits is the source of concern.
3:48:23 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR stated that some operational canines are privately
owned and contracted by the government rather than being
publicly owned.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE noted that in some cases, volunteer
search-and-rescue dogs may respond independently. He said
emergency personnel on scene could be legally prohibited from
providing care if the dog is injured.
3:48:59 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR stated that he finds it surprising that a paramedic
could be sued for trying to save a dog and acknowledged that
such laws exist to address these situations.
3:49:16 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked how frequently someone has been sued for
trying to save an operational canine.
REPRESENATIVE SCHRAGE replied that this happens rarely.
3:50:05 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked whether the legislation included provisions
for disclosure and consent, allowing an emergency technician to
explain that, while they are not veterinarians, they do have
medical training when offering care.
3:50:31 PM
MR. HOUSTON replied that HB 70 does not include any requirement
for EMTs or paramedics to disclose their qualifications to the
owner or handler of an operational canine before providing care.
3:50:52 PM
CHAIR TOBIN noted that disclosure and consent are commonly used
to reduce liability and suggest that good-faith efforts to save
a life. She asked whether Good Samaritan protections apply to
dogs and argued the protection should apply in such
circumstances.
3:51:29 PM
SENATOR HUGHES noted that while the sponsor's statement
references a K9 Tactical Emergency Casualty Care course, HB 70
does not require EMS professionals to take it. She asked whether
the course would be incorporated into EMS training if HB 70
passes and why it was not mandated.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE replied that HB 70 requires EMS
organizations to create an opt-in training program to ensure
their professionals are prepared, allowing them to use courses
like K9 Tactical Emergency Casualty Care or another program of
their choosing.
3:52:45 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked if HB 70 passes could an EMS professional
face liability for choosing not to provide aid under the bill as
written.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE replied that there is no obligation to
provide care. HB 70 allows EMS organizations to adopt policies
permitting care for operational canines though, does not require
EMS professionals to provide that care. HB 70 also requires that
human patients be prioritized over canines when both are
present.
3:53:46 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL noted that HB 70 does mention consent on page 6,
line 4, "...the emergency medical technician or mobile intensive
care paramedic has obtained informed consent from the owner of
the operational canine or a person authorized to make medical
decisions about the operational canine..."
3:54:21 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR announced invited testimony on HB 70.
3:54:50 PM
BRIAN WEBB, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified by
invitation on HB 70 and explained his background in the medical
field and with canines. He stated that Alaska's operational
canines face the same dangers as human responders, though EMS
clinicians are not legally allowed to treat them, forcing some
to intervene at personal risk. HB 70 creates a voluntary, opt-in
process allowing trained EMS agencies to provide emergency care
and transport to veterinarians, prioritizing human patients and
accounting for Alaska's remote geography. He said that HB 70 is
modeled after laws in other states and supported by military
experience, peer-reviewed research, and a broad coalition of EMS
and veterinary professionals. HB 70 is not mandatory statewide
and applies only to agencies with the capacity and need to
participate.
3:58:26 PM
MR. WEBB stated that HB 70 is the first phase, with a proposed
accelerated second phase focused on designing policies,
protocols, training standards, and oversight through a
collaborative EMS and veterinary advisory panel. This process
would tailor national best practices to Alaska, strengthen
coordination with veterinarians, and ensure operational canines
receive appropriate emergency care, with the goal of passing HB
70 to provide legal clarity and save lives.
4:00:30 PM
MELISSA EDWARDS, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified by
invitation on HB 70. She stated that she supports HB 70 because
it establishes a clear legal framework allowing EMS providers to
deliver pre-hospital care to operational canines without relying
on Good Samaritan or owner-agent theories that often do not
apply to paid EMS personnel. HB 70 prioritizes human patients,
respects veterinary practice acts, and allows veterinarian-
directed, scope-appropriate EMS care near the point of injury to
reduce preventable deaths, using training and oversight
developed collaboratively with the veterinary community. The
bill leverages existing EMS skills within established scopes of
practice rather than expanding them. This approach has been
shown in other states and in military settings to improve
survival and reduce disability in injured operational canines.
4:04:56 PM
MS. EDWARDS stated that if HB 70 passes, veterinary and EMS
regulatory boards should jointly oversee protocol development,
training, and continuing education for EMS-provided canine care.
She said with veterinary-approved, protocol-driven oversight and
targeted training, EMS providers can safely deliver scope-
appropriate, pre-hospital care and transport for injured
operational canines. The skills largely translate from human EMS
practice with focused instruction in comparative anatomy,
physiology, and safe handling. Evidence from other states shows
this training can be completed efficiently while maintaining
provider and animal safety.
4:07:03 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR opened public testimony on HB 70.
4:07:36 PM
MARY ANN HOLLICK, representing self, Eagle River, Alaska,
testified with concerns on HB 70. She stated that she supports
animal welfare yet cautions that HB 70 requires strong
veterinary oversight, clear limits of care, and rigorous
training before EMS treats canines. She emphasized safety,
accountability, proper communication, and rapid transfer to
veterinary emergency care.
4:09:55 PM
NELSON PRIDDY, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
with concerns on HB 70. He argued HB 70 should simply protect
first responders from liability when providing basic aid to
working or search-and-rescue dogs that are injured, rather than
creating a complex regulatory system. He urged keeping HB 70
simple so responders can offer lifesaving first aid without fear
of discipline, noting that while not all animals will survive,
some will be saved.
4:12:6 PM
MCKAYLA DICK, Member At Large, Alaska State Veterinary Medical
Association, North Pole, Alaska, testified in opposition to HB
70. She agreed with HB 70's original goal of saving injured
working animals through first aid and transport however, she
raises concerns about insufficient veterinary oversight. She
said she supports creating a task force or advisory board
including veterinarians and EMS to develop durable legislation
while ensuring veterinarians are included in the process.
4:14:27 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked Ms. Dick how she would recommend amending
HB 70 to make it workable and secure the association's support
if a task force was not an option.
4:14:52 PM
MS. DICK replied that first aid and transport for injured
canines should require direct guidance from a licensed
veterinarian, noting that emergency veterinarians are available
and willing to provide real-time consultation. She urged that
this requirement be explicitly included in the legislation.
4:16:06 PM
SEAN MCPECK, representing self, Palmer, Alaska, testified in
support of HB 70. She stated that simple pre-hospital
interventions by trained medical personnel have repeatedly saved
the lives of working dogs in military and civilian settings.
Given Alaska's vast geography and time-critical injuries, she
argued that allowing EMS to provide basic, well-defined canine
emergency care, without unnecessary delays, can prevent
avoidable deaths and is practical with limited, targeted
training.
4:19:24 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR closed public testimony on HB 70.
4:20:09 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR held HB 70 in committee.